ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"

  • To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
  • From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:17:08 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <2229fc3c-f460-20dd-75e0-1ec771e2ea79@julf.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <ACB27581-7C59-4172-B030-C1003AC38A34@godaddy.com> <2229fc3c-f460-20dd-75e0-1ec771e2ea79@julf.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHSID6JU4YbkPTHf02GnJuy5ezWvKCdDggA///GAyA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
I would point out that neither the Board nor GAC has endorsed what the IGO 
small group has proposed. As the cover letter states, " I am pleased to inform 
you that the Board has been notified that the small group has reached consensus 
on a proposal for a number of general principles and suggestions that it hopes 
will be acceptable to the GAC and the GNSO. I attach that proposal to this 
letter for the GNSO’s review.” This is the same small group of IGOs that has 
been conspicuous in its absence from almost the entire established process in 
which the GNSO-created WG examining CRP for IGOs has sought to provide greater 
protection of their legitimate rights.



I would also point out that what the Proposal contains under point 2, Dispute 
Resolution Mechanisms, is just two broad principles without any additional 
detail. There is zero in the way of legal or other justification for the 
position taken, and nothing in the way of proposed rules, procedures, or 
suggested venues for the new and separate DRP they are seeking.  The first 
principle has been effectively  addressed by the CRP WG and our report and 
recommendations will clarify the ready means by which IGOs may establish 
standing to use the UDRP and URS in a manner that shields any sovereign 
immunity they believe they possess. The second principle has been fully 
considered and mostly rejected by the WG, with one narrow element still under 
final discussion.



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell



Twitter: @VlawDC



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Helsingius [mailto:julf@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 6:30 AM
To: James M. Bladel; Phil Corwin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on 
IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"



James,



> If possible, we will add it as a discussion item under AOB.



Yes, please - I think we do need to discuss this as soon as possible, and have 
a clear position.



                Julf





-----

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>

Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13159 - Release Date: 10/06/16
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>